Al Kidd on Blood

by Marvin Shilmer 9 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Another apologist for the Watchtower Society doctrinal position on blood has written on the subject. His name is Al Kidd. His written comments can be found at http://www.geocities.com/rogueactivex/blood-kidd.htm .

    Al Kidd begins by writing:

    “Blood's major components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma) taken unnaturally (i.e., taken by human intervention) from a bloodstream must not be stored for reuse in the very component form in which they were taken. If the major components are destroyed (i.e., for example, if subcomponents are extracted, by some manmade procedure, from any of the major components), then many of us Jehovah's Witnesses reason that the subcomponents may be stored for some use.”

    The premise above is what Al Kidd asserts as a line of distinction between what is and is not what he later terms “bloodness.” That is, his initial paragraph ends up as a premise to distinguish between what is “blood” that must be abstained from and what is maybe not “blood” that must be abstained from.

    After reading Kidd’s comment above, along with the rest of his tedious use of a great many words, one must wonder if Al Kidd knows the effect of something as simple as cooking whole blood under heat. I do. By heat conversion the components are destroyed by a manmade procedure. Therefore Al Kidd’s proposition would mean that many Jehovah’s Witnesses could store for some use blood that is first cooked under heat.

    On the medical aspect of this issue Al Kidd’s premise means one thing: Jehovah’s Witnesses can use every single bit of blood so long as it is first dissected to some form other than red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. Therefore, of a liter of donated whole blood Jehovah’s Witnesses could medically transfuse the entire amount after dissecting it.

    One wonders if apologists like Al Kidd take time to review their premises for validity in the face of common sense. Or if they have simply deluded themselves with the great cloud of words they surround themselves with.

    Too, in his verbose attempted apologia noticeably Al Kidd avoids mentioning the use God himself made of blood as food by providing non-Judaic descendents of Noah with unbled flesh by Israelites either giving or selling to them the unbled carcasses of animals that had died of themselves. And let’s not forget that this provision was expressly for the purpose of eating the unbled flesh! (See Deuteronomy

    Perhaps one of the all time ironies regarding the WTS is that persons like Al Kidd can pride themselves on defending a position of “abstaining from blood” when in fact the WTS teaches its adherents to respect using from blood each and every day of the week. Al Kidd on one hand is forced to assert, “We abstain from blood,” yet on the other hand has to explain “Why we use from blood” -- an amazing paradox.

    _______________

    Marvin Shilmer

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    I've dealt with this moron Al Kidd before. He's very much like Watchtower writers who deal with blood -- dazzle them with doo-doo.

    Kidd illustrates perfectly the Pharisaic nature of the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Pharisees spent great energy writing down the fine differences between this position and that position with respect to parts of the Mosaic Law, all the while missing the simplest of points that Jesus so well demonstrated: "I want mercy and not sacrifice" and "life is more important than obeying a ritualistic law".

    But Kidd is as thoroughly hypocritical as the rest of his moronic cadre of JW apologists. All of them know full well that their position is not based on reason, but on the Watchtower Society's rules. Let a rule change, and their position will change. Let the blood prohibition go away, and they will advocate the "conscience nature" of taking a blood transfusion.

    AlanF

  • sf
    sf

    Nice find Marv.

    Here is one category the message board has up:

    http://pub35.ezboard.com/fhalsbiblestudygroupfrm3:

    The Apologist Forum
    Moderator: chesswang
    Debate and discuss everything from Angelic-Christology to Greg Stafford's book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended."

    The entire site:

    http://www.geocities.com/rogueactivex/

    This guy is on my yahoo 'friends list'.

    sKally

  • sf
    sf

    Al Kidd's latest reply to Bowman!
    Rob Bowman attempted to take Al Kidd to task for Al's support of Greg Stafford. ... Rob
    Bowman attempted to take Al Kidd to task for Al's support of Greg Stafford. ...
    jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/kidd_bowman_trinity.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

    Al Kidd on Trinitarians' View of "Person"
    Jehovah's Witnesses United. Posted by Al Kidd on June 20, 1998 at
    01:53:56: Trinity's "Persons" and Quaternity. The one object that ...
    jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/kidd_quaternity.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
    [ More results from jehovah.to ]

    Al Kidd Responds to Rob Bowman on the Trinity!
    Rob Bowman attempted to take Al Kidd to task for Al's support of Greg Stafford. ... Posted
    by Al Kidd on June 09, 1998 at 13:09:28: Kidd Against Bowman. ...
    members.aol.com/debatelog/Kidd_Bowman_Trinity.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Marvin!

    "Blood's major components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma) taken unnaturally (i.e., taken by human intervention) from a bloodstream must not be stored for reuse in the very component form in which they were taken.

    "Unnaturally (i.e., taken by human intervention)....must not be stored for reuse."

    Is it reasonable that the opposite is approved for storage (i.e., not taken by human intervention)? So., if a person/animal bleeds out naturally - like in Older Days, put a bucket under the cut and catch the blood with it's major blood components......then it's ok?

    And why can't they be stored for reuse in the "very component form in which they were taken?" What difference does it make as being stored has nothing to do with injecting/drinking these same stored major components? Where does the Bible say we can't store blood and/or major blood components?

    If the major components are destroyed (i.e., for example, if subcomponents are extracted, by some manmade procedure, from any of the major components), then many of us Jehovah's Witnesses reason that the subcomponents may be stored for some use."

    Is it proper to say that the "major components are destroyed" because something is "extracted" from it? How would anyone know if that particular major component is completely destroyed - as it still could be saved by the hospital for another type of extraction later on.

    jw - "Doctor, before I take that Minor Blood Component, can you swear to me that you've destroyed the particular Major Component it was derived from?"

    On the medical aspect of this issue Al Kidd’s premise means one thing: Jehovah’s Witnesses can use every single bit of blood so long as it is first dissected to some form other than red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. Therefore, of a liter of donated whole blood Jehovah’s Witnesses could medically transfuse the entire amount after dissecting it.

    Now, a jw can "Abstain from Blood".........and have their blood too. How convenient for them.

    waiting

  • metatron
    metatron

    How convenient that the lying Governing Body has apologists to defend its arbitrary

    'house' rules BUT DOESN'T OFFICIALLY ENDORSE THEIR WORK. Idiots like

    Kidd should ask themselves honestly WHY THE SOCIETY IS SILENT on this

    and other matters. Why do they need these amateur theologians to come to their

    aid? Why not defend the matter, in depth, themselves?

    Of course, we all know the answer. It's because the whole blood transfusion issue

    is a death-dealing fraud perpetrated by callous, lying old men trying to hold on

    to their wrongful authority. They would rather see a few more innocent dupes

    die off rather admit that they were wrong- and accept the consequences of their

    foolish teachings. The average Witness is so completely deceived that it never

    even occurs to them that disassociating people who take blood is effectively

    DEMANDING that people die, whether they like it or not. Why stop there?

    Why not force inactive people to attend meetings at gunpoint? Involuntary

    martyrdom is repulsive --- but not, of course, to these sick, twisted Theocrats.

    metatron

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hi, Alan

    Yes, we agree on Mr. Kidd’s pedigree. Forget solid science, reason and common sense. Defend the WTS no matter what. It doesn’t take a genius to know whether Kidd would have been with Saul in the hunt to kill David. Sticking with the “anointed of Jehovah” despite truth and soundness of mind is a reoccurring theme. The biblical depiction of Moses’ sin at Meribah has Aaron doing the same thing, and the cost for Aaron was removal from high office and premature death. I guess we can hope.

    Hello, sKally

    This rogueactivex has recently posed online his real name as Mark Davis. He’s a kid. One day he’ll have to grow up and think back on some of his earlier days of fighting for the indefensible just like so many others of us did during the unavoidable period when we accepted certain things on trust. He’ll be embarrassed. I suppose in so many cases the learning curve is unavoidable.

    Greetings, Waiting

    It sure was nice meeting you and the fine hubby a few weeks back. Maybe one day when I’m in the neighborhood we can hook up again!

    I had to chuckle at your quite realistic comment that now JWs can abstain from blood and eat it too! A keeper

    Metatron

    Those that make doctrine yet are unwilling to publicly defend the details they would enforce under pain of extreme shunning or death are just plain cowards. There is no other word for it. Al Kidd is not only duped into defending the indefensible but also into defending the cowardly.

    __________________

    Marvin Shilmer

  • gumby
    gumby
    All of them know full well that their position is not based on reason, but on the Watchtower Society's rules.

    Come on Alan......'not based on reason'?

    You know as well as I do Noah would have known the answers to all these blood questions if we could resurrect him and ask him! I'm sure he would have known which components from blood would be taboo, and which ones wouldn't. Jehovah made all that real plain.

    ( I heard they found some ancient goodies that proves Noah gave himself wine transfusion then complained he never got a buzz)

    Gumby

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Remember the expression: "strain out the gnat but swallow the camel?" Like the Talmudists, the organization makes a bunch of rules over what they consider are answers to questions derived from unclear understanding of scripture. It takes pages of explanations and years of publicatioins to develop some of these rules. Jehovah's Witnesses end up with volumes of Watchtower articles as references instead of the Bible.

    Jehovah's Witnesses then make sure that they avoid every little infraction that the Watchtower dictates. But they willingly swallow the whole mouthful of Watchtower pronouncements. Swallowing a few "gnats" probably won't hurt a person. But trying to force down a "camel" can kill you.

  • TD
    TD

    When the JW position on blood is the subject in question, I think the Jews often come off worse than they really should.

    It cannot be emphasized enough that the JW blood doctrine is far, far beyond anything that the Pharisees ever actually taught. Judaism holds preserving life as the very highest of all mitzvoth. With the exceptions of murder, idolatry and gross sexual misconduct, any requirement or restriction of the Law could be set aside in order to preserve life. In other words, the Pharisees themselves would have had no problem with blood transfusion.

    Tom

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit